wisdom wrote:How do people feel that these two teachings relate and don't relate? I really enjoy reading Daoism and especially teachings from the Complete Reality school. I love the direct nature of these teachings and feel they reflect much of what I read in Dzogchen texts. I also love the open attitude I've found in the Book of Balance and Harmony translated by John Cleary, where there is talk of the equality of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. I find this to contrast with a lot of the triumphalist rhetoric in Buddhism, however I am labeling neither of these things as good or bad in themselves, I just love the different points of view for what they are.

According to Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, the four extremes, as claimed by the Madhyamika philosophical school, are Eternalism, Nihilism, Either or Neither. He says that Taoism is included in the last category, defending neither existence nor non-existence, making it very similar to the Middle Way, but still different, as it is still an extreme. It is very hard to understand intelectually, but we must be attached to no view. If anyone is interested, Dzongsar's commentary on the Madhyamika is freely available on the internet.

--Karma Rigpe Wangchuk

"Meditation brings wisdom. Lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back."Shakyamuni

etinin wrote:According to Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, the four extremes, as claimed by the Madhyamika philosophical school, are Eternalism, Nihilism, Either or Neither. He says that Taoism is included in the last category, defending neither existence nor non-existence, making it very similar to the Middle Way, but still different, as it is still an extreme. It is very hard to understand intelectually, but we must be attached to no view...

This last point you made is especially important. In my mind, upon contemplating this, the implication is that many of us so-called Mahayanists and even specifically we so-called Madhyamikas fall into the same category as Rinpoche is saying the Daoists are in because we are often unknowingly very far away from being beyond a view. We're often very much caught in the thicket of the concept of emptiness/the view of neither one nor many. I suppose to some extent it's impossible not to be until we've got some deeper insight into emptiness under our belts, and especially until there is some actual realization. My point being that we might be quick to criticize other paths for these errors, and though maybe it's true that the ultimate view of Mahayana/Vajrayana/Dzogchen is superior to other paths, for much of our lives we as practitioners may still be guilty of the very errors we're accusing others of. Anyway, this is just the thought that popped into my head just now.

I think the only real distinction to worry about is whether you are trying to narrow down your practice for purpose of actually getting somewhere.

I have no idea if Daoism and Dzogchen are the same, and frankly, I don't really think anyone here knows either, at least i'm pretty sure none of us are at this point.

The thing is though, you have to pick what you are doing. That doesn't mean you cannot appreciate or integrate other teachings, I love the Tao Te Ching personally. It just means that in general you have to pick something that if nothing else acts as your "filter" (hopefully a semi-permeable filter;)...it's not being exclusionary, it's just practicality, there has to be some range or bandwidth of what you study, if you are constantly trying to make everything seem the same...that becomes a project of and within itself.

There's a reason that the New Age movement is always pigeonholed as being shallow and silly, with a few exceptions you have to be at least somewhat narrow to hope to go deep, being too broad (again speaking practically/conventionally, not ultimately) makes it impossible to progress in studying much of anything, dharma or otherwise.

I try to read what I can of other traditions, and I do find it edifying when they seem to have something in common with Dharma. I think it's reasonable as some have said to suppose there is no monopoly on truth, heck plenty of Dharma teachers say something similar. Really, though you have to just pick a thing and do it, and conjecture about whether or not it's "the same" as something esle on some level might be interesting, but it doesn't really seem to lead anywhere productive. I mean, we all have our own little crappy corner of samsara to we have to start from, there is no point in trying to guess whether or not it is the same as someone elses until we have actually arrived at a place where we don't need to ask the question any more.

Or maybe i'm missing something, and there is more value for practice in this kind of comparison than I think.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I think the only real distinction to worry about is whether you are trying to narrow down your practice for purpose of actually getting somewhere.

I have no idea if Daoism and Dzogchen are the same, and frankly, I don't really think anyone here knows either, at least i'm pretty sure none of us are at this point.

The thing is though, you have to pick what you are doing. That doesn't mean you cannot appreciate or integrate other teachings, I love the Tao Te Ching personally. It just means that in general you have to pick something that if nothing acts as your "filter" (hopefully a semi-permeable filter;)...it's not being exclusionary, it's just practicality, there has to be some range or bandwidth of what you study, if you are constantly trying to make everything seem the same...that becomes a project of and within itself.

There's a reason that the New Age movement is always pigeonholed as being shallow and silly, with a few exceptions you have to be at least somewhat narrow to hope to go deep, being too broad (again speaking practically/conventionally, not ultimately) makes it impossible to progress in studying much of anything, dharma or otherwise.

By that rationale, if we are practicing Dzogchen we should leave behind Vajrayana and Mahayana to say nothing of teachings like the Vinaya-- no point understanding more than just the one point of view, the one yidam or meditation one has been given. This kind of approach indeed resembles the related project of Pabongka and his followers: encouraging the schools to only practice their lineage and not mix them. Personally, I find it to be a pernicious form of reductionism.

I don't think anyone has completely equated Taoism and Buddhism, merely stated that there are not two non-dual realizations to be had beyond the realm of conceptual thought. There are lots of differences within the realm of doctrine. There are some commonalities and many differences within the realm of praxis. I don't think it follows that one has to become conditioned to only a single religious viewpoint, nor is the alternative some some of syncretic porridge. If you have limited bandwidth, be picky by all means. However, I find most practitioners that only scratch the surface do so because they spend more time at the bistro or in front of the TV than on a cushion. I can't say as I have met too many superficial practitioners that practice multiple traditions according to the teachings of the respective lineages. YMMV.

The New Age "movement" such as it is has been characterized as shallow and silly because of it's focus on self-improvement and indulgence, not because of syncretism. If one is focused on pleasure, relaxation and further ornamenting one's egoic identity, quite obviously one won't get very far or go very deep. The fault isn't breadth of study, but partial and faulty motivation.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

I don't think anyone has completely equated Taoism and Buddhism, merely stated that there are not two non-dual realizations to be had beyond the realm of conceptual thought.

You can't make any definitive statements about "what is" in terms of non dual realization, unless you are claiming enough to progress that you can actually teach others I suppose. Much less to say that two traditions are "the same" non dual realization..if it is all beyond words and concepts then the idea that one can definitely state that realizations are same or different doesn't jive.

I also didn't accuse anyone of completely equating anything with anything, so please, don't argue with my phantom twin who evidently posted something like that, or made a definitive statement that they are not the same..I didn't do either.

I don't think it follows that one has to become conditioned to only a single religious viewpoint

That also, is not what I said.

This kind of approach indeed resembles the related project of Pabongka and his followers: encouraging the schools to only practice their lineage and not mix them. Personally, I find it to be a pernicious form of reductionism.

My daughter goes to a Chabad preschool, and i'm married to an observant Jew dude, your projections about what I am saying have nothing to do with what I am saying. I'm not making an value judgements on other paths, or their relative sameness or differentness..I am saying though that I think obsession towards either side of the argument is essentially the same kind of arrogance. Do what resonates and do it our best, that's all the "same" anyone needs. How the heck ya gonna tell someone else that something indescribable is "one" or "many" anyway?

Johnny Dangerous wrote:I have no idea if Daoism and Dzogchen are the same, and frankly, I don't really think anyone here knows either, at least i'm pretty sure none of us are at this point.

Does your phantom twin post using the same handle, or do you have some private parallel meaning for "the same" that doesn't mean completely equating two things?

There quite obviously are not two non-dual states free from prapanca. Each school or tradition posits that somehow their competitors in the lottery for royal patronage are holding onto a thought of some sort or another, be it eternalistic or nihilistic.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

Johnny Dangerous wrote:You know what, I have a hard time conversing with you for some reason.

No one's fault, but i'm done..sorry to interrupt the thread, I should've known better.

Aww... don't go away mad! It's the fault of the medium, likely making posts seem less whimsical than they are intended. We can't lose sight of the obvious fact that we are all much closer in point of view than to 99.9999% of the other beings in the universe.

It's great to practice one thing and practice it well, regardless of what path. I just think it is unfortunate that there is such a strong tendency to attempt to invalidate other paths within each of this planet's wisdom traditions. (And I am not suggesting that you are attempting to invalidate anything, but others on the thread have made statements to that effect.)

What religion we are born into and practice is a function of our samskaras, not our wisdom.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

As fate would have it, I live near a Quanzhen temple. Most of the people who come just do baibai (worship the gods by bowing with incense), but there are priests who lead regular rituals. The temple also offers weekend classes--mostly in fortune telling, but also in classic texts. The teachers seem to be ordinary people (one is a university professor) who make no claim to being enlightened, or to possess magic powers. (Fortune telling is not considered magic.)

So, how am I going to compare all that with Dzogchen? There are a few Nyingma dharma centers in the area, but should I focus on the scriptures, the community, or the saintly figures of yore? And what should I be looking for?

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."